US air strikes kill 140 civilians in Afghanistan, including 93 children

My facts are straight. It is you looks at them through biased glasses. Obama during his campaign laid out the strategy for Afganistan which george II then adopted, specifically the increasing military headcount in Afganistan. The part that george II did not do was to stop burning crops and develop Afgan social and civilian infrastructure. You like to focus on the military build up and ignore everything else. The Afganistan situation will not be solved with military forces alone. It is critical that social and economic infrastructure be developed before therer can be any hope of a peaceful society in Afganistan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, ....you and Obama are suggesting a Vietnam War all over again ...just being fought in a different country, huh? Sad, sad, sad!

What needs to happen is to fight the war like we fought World War II ...killing people and blowing up things until the enemy surrendered unconditionally. And we did it by taking ground, taking territory, and controlling it and keeping the enemy from moving back into that territory. In Vietnam, we fought, took territory from the VC and NVA, then pulled out and gave it right back to them ......which is exactly, precisely, what we're doing in Afghanistan. We also talked about winning "hearts n' minds" in 'Nam ...and we're still talking about it now in Afghanistan.

War is about killing and destroying, not about winning hearts n' minds!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't recall the victims of 911 getting such retribution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not a meaningless digression to get into the reasons for US attacks- If a nation is setting about killing people (whatever the methods) it's only right to inquire as to the reason.

Those who support US Predator attacks in Pakistan (and similar bombings) are often prone to making the insinuation that we are pursuing those responsible for 9-11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan with our sui-hide attacks: What many imagine as bombings without blowback. But of course these bombings will have profound consequences involving the credibility, respectability, and security of the USA. Throughout the years since 9-11, it is clear that a great many more innocent people have been killed in response, but without reason.

We in the USA who are responsible for these attacks know nearly nothing about who remains in the chain of responsibility for 9-11, and where they are. We've been conspicuously lied to by our leaders about threats against us. We are at a complete rational loss whenever challenged to justify what we are doing with our weaponry around the world. That's what needs our attention.

This isn't going to end through a war of attrition. It's going to end when most USAmericans demand the verifiable truth, and when we won't settle for shallow remarks about the attacks we launch, and about the innocent people we are killing. Our flawed rationale in the USA for perpetuating the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq is declining, but it's still in force and can be escalated. So at every opportunity, those who want for this cycle of cruel injustice to end have got to challenge the lies. We must continue to demand the answer to the question most immediately on the minds of innocent victims, and seared into the lasting thoughts of those who love them:

Why?

 

Baron Max: "War is about killing and destroying, not about winning hearts n' minds!"

It is about both, if your intention is to win. If you persistently discount the hearts and minds of a people, they'll still come for you, even after the Mother of All Battles. If you hold no cause, you can hold no ground.

"What needs to happen is to fight the war like we fought World War II ...killing people and blowing up things until the enemy surrendered unconditionally."

We have no cause for that in the USA. It's true, we can have Total War, but without just cause there is no legitimacy and no victory. Without just cause, we will find ourselves on the losing side, with the world against us. War is not finality.

I know these seem like tedious digressions, but these flailing attempts to justify the unjustifiable are at the center of the popular assumptions that are perpetuating the killing.

 

As usual Baron, you are over simplifying the situation and misrepresenting my statement. There is no doubt war is hell and about killing.

Unless you are willing to kill everyone in Afganistan and neighboring countries, military force is not going to solve the problem in Afghanistan. Military force is just one tool out of many. It is the hammer not the screw driver. A skilled craftsman uses the right tool for the job. That was a problem we faced in Vietnam and a problem we face now, we used the wrong tools for the job. It was a problem we faced in WWI and WWII – though we did a much better job addressing the issue in WWII and Korea than in any previous or subsequent war.

 

No. I am not defending Bush or criticizing Obama, so bias doesn't enter into it. All I am doing is stating what happened and when and pointing out that the two are of a likemind on the issue. If anyone here is operating under a bias, it is you.

Bullshit -- and the links show that. Bush proposed the strategy and was actually sending troops.

If you think the US, under Bush, was not working on Afghan civilian infrastructure, then you are completely ignorant of what we've been doing there. I suggest you educate yourself. Holding a press conference and proclaiming the current policy in new language is not some major shift in policy or new policy. It's political theater.

I thought the issue was troops into Afghanistan?

No shit.

No shit.

 

US occupations have a straightforward solution: End them. Afghanistan is not a US territory or responsibility.

 

Funny how in September of last year george II decided to reevaluate his Afganistan policy and funny how it mimics the policy Obama had been advocating for more than a year.

You want a link, enjoy yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/washington/23policy.html

The best summary of bush's policies in Afganistan is "say one thing and do another". george II was plain incompetent in many arenas including Afganistan.

 

How odd you say that, Hype?? The American people elected ol' whatshisname and one of his pre-election statements was that he'd win the war in Afghanistan. So ...as you've said, so many times before, "the people" have spoken ....and if the people want US troops in Afghanistan, then that's where they should be. And, Hype, you, of all people, should be willing to accept that judgement ...even if you don't like it!

Baron Max

 

The problem in Afganistan can be fixed relatively quickly if the terrorists, thugs and murrders stop hiding behind civilans and fight man to man and/or throw down their weapons and stop trying to kill innocent people.

 

joepistole: "The problem in Afganistan can be fixed relatively quickly if the terrorists, thugs and murrders stop hiding behind civilans and fight man to man and/or throw down their weapons and stop trying to kill innocent people."

That's never going to happen (as I know you're aware).

Baron Max: "The American people elected ol' whatshisname and one of his pre-election statements was that he'd win the war in Afghanistan. So ...as you've said, so many times before, "the people" have spoken ....and if the people want US troops in Afghanistan, then that's where they should be."

When we come to our senses (as a clear majority) our troops are coming home.

 

And Countzero, let's be honest. You are no more a Independent thinker than george II is a competent leader. You are a frustrated Republican and bush II supporter. You are now embarrased to call yourself a Republican so you pretend to be Independent. You are one of the few Republicans who see that you have been lied to and betrayed by the Republican Party. Kudos to you for that realization, but that does not make you an independent. That makes you a frustrated Republican, conservative or whatever else you guys are calling yourselves now days.

I have been an Independent all my life. That means I vote Democrat or Republican or something else as I see fit. You would never vote Democrat. So let's stop this pretending to be independent.

 

Ah, so you agree that the American people were NOT in their right mind when they elected ol' whatshisname? ..and I thought you were like many people here who worshipped him.

Baron Max

 

Funny how you can't read.

Your link says: "It was only last December that the administration concluded its last major reassessment of Afghanistan policy. The administration recently announced a series of changes, including plans to double the size of the Afghan Army, restructure the American military command there and put more intelligence analysts on the ground to help hunt down militants from the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

The article was written in September of 2008.

So, in other words, the Bush administration had a top-down review that ended the PREVIOUS December. Increasing the troops was part of that review. I didn't find Obama's name anywhere in that article, either.

You're spinning and grasping at straws. First, you said there was no buildup under Bush, then when that was shown incorrect you start on about how he was only aping Obama. You need to stop cheerleading and acknowledge reality.

Yes. Let's be honest. Let's start with the fact you don't know shit about me and confuse the posting of FACTS with rendering an opinion. For the record, I am not a Bush supporter. Let's add that I never voted for him or any other Republican. So yes, by all means, go on with your juvenile attempts to label me all because I am forcing you acknowledge facts that do not enter into your little worldview. Christ, who's the indepedent here? If it was you, you would see what I have posted and acknowledge. Instead, we get whining, backtracking and name-calling . . .

 

Baron Max: "Ah, so you agree that the American people were NOT in their right mind when they elected ol' whatshisname? ..and I thought you were like many people here who worshipped him."

See- You're learning things, Baron. I've always thought that patience isn't wasted on you. Welcome back.

 

I am spinning nothing and grasping at nothing. Bush did not start changing his policy in Afganistan until Obama laid out his Afganistan policy and guess who tried to implement it without success. george II failed to spend the resources on civil projects despite the administration claims. It was very obvious to any unbiased observer that there was a huge difference between what the bush II administration said and did in Afganistan.

In 2005 the following announcment was made by the Pentagon stating they were reducing troop levels in Afganistan. You need to do a little more reading before engaging fingers. And I would also suggest that you stop cherry picking through articles to find only those few sentences that you use to stretch to confirm your opinion.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18492

Your positions are quite clear in your postings. You have a distinct conservative/Republican bias. I don't care what you call yourself. It matters little to me what you call yourself. Just because you claim not to be a Republican or bush supporter does not make you unbiased. Just because you are critical of both bush and Obama does not make you unbiased. You my friend have a very distinct bias that is reflected in your posts. So no matter what you call yourself, you are indeed very biased.

 

Biased - Not Biased. Who can tell if something is slanted?

 

Please create a new thread, this is not about warlords, resistance fighters, we are discussing the topic of innocent civilians by US drone strikes which left 140 civilians dead, 93 children. No fighters were in the region at this time, this is the statements of Karzai Afghani government in Kabul [ally of the Americans]. These attacks have been going on for several months, butchering whole families. It is a completely ineffective strategy which creates animosity towards the occupying forces, and makes peace impossible.

If you can't discuss this topic individually, please begin your own thread.

Also, as indicated, Democrats are no better than Republicans for the people of Afghanistan. Already, thousands of civilians have been killed in these predator drone attacks. Then again, it is quite difficult to explain this to people who are racist against Afghanis and Iraqis, and hate Muslims. This military apparatus which is creating hundreds of Abu Ghareeb around the Muslim world. As long injustice remains, the resistance shall remain. There is a gulf of difference between random assailants and resistance fighters who solely target occupational forces. The US strategy right now is to blur the line between the two, and also to blame the innocent civilians of the region for America's own failures in the neo-colonial Afghani, Iraqi adventures.

 

Those quotes negate any discussion. Biased thread killers.